ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2005
Rapid Ped-2E9 cell-based cytotoxicity analysis and genotyping of Bacillus species.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chicken embryos are a valuable model for the selection of Bacillus subtilis for probiotic purposes.Archives of microbiology · 2022Article
- Preparation of Nanomaterial Wettable Powder Formulations of Antagonistic Bacteria from Phellodendron chinense and the Biological Control of Brown Leaf Spot Disease.The plant pathology journal · 2021Article
- Biofilm-isolated Listeria monocytogenes exhibits reduced systemic dissemination at the early (12-24 h) stage of infection in a mouse model.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2021Article
- TheToxins · 2020Review
- Mammalian Cell-Based Immunoassay for Detection of Viable Bacterial Pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Biotoxin detection using cell-based sensors.Toxins · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacillus species causing food-borne disease produce multiple toxins eliciting gastroenteritis. Toxin assays with mammalian cell cultures are reliable but may take 24 to 72 h to complete and also lack sensitivity. Here, a sensitive and rapid assay was developed using a murine hybridoma Ped-2E9 cell model. Bacillus culture supernatants containing toxins were added to a Ped-2E9 cell line and analyzed for cytotoxicity with an alkaline phosphatase release assay. Most Bacillus cereus strains produced positive cytotoxicity results within 1 h, and data were comparable to those obtained with the standard Chinese hamster ovary (CHO)-based cytotoxicity assay, which took about 72 h to complete. Moreover, the Ped-2E9 cell assay had 25- to 58-fold-higher sensitivity than the CHO assay. Enterotoxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis also gave positive results with Ped-2E9 cells, while several other Bacillus species were negative. Eight isolates from food suspected of Bacillus contamination were also tested, and only one strain, which was later confirmed as B. cereus, gave a positive result. In comparison with two commercial diarrheal toxin assay kits (BDE-VIA and BCET-RPLA), the Ped-2E9 assay performed more reliably. Toxin fractions of >30 kDa showed the highest degree of cytotoxicity effects, and heat treatment significantly reduced the toxin activity, indicating the involvement of a heat-labile high-molecular-weight component in Ped-2E9 cytotoxicity. PCR results, in most cases, were in agreement with the cytotoxic potential of each strain. Ribotyping was used to identify cultures and indicated differences for several previously reported isolates. This Ped-2E9 cell assay could be used as a rapid (approximately 1-h) alternative to current methods for sensitive detection of enterotoxins from Bacillus species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.